The fraud has caused millions of people to fill their cars with substandard gasoline that may have violated clean air standards, or to drink water not properly tested for safety, officials told the Associated Press.

In addition, officials making decisions at hazardous-waste cleanup sites have relied on companies that fraudulently tested air, water and soil samples.

"In recent years, what has come to our attention is that [nongovernment] labs are oftentimes in bed with the people who hired them, and conspired to commit environmental crime," said David Uhlmann, chief of the Justice Department's environmental crimes section.

The EPA's watchdog against fraud, Inspector General Nikki Tinsley, has called the rise of lab fraud a disturbing trend.

"If it was my drinking water, I'd consider it very serious," she said, declining to identify locations affected by the ongoing investigation.

Private laboratories test products regulated by anti-pollution laws, and the results allow companies to certify that they are meeting such laws' requirements.

In one instance three years ago, investigators discovered fraudulent test results by contract employees at the Environmental Protection Agency lab in Chicago. The head of the laboratory was transferred and the contractor, Lockheed Martin, was suspended from performing tests.

The Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency have prosecuted dozens of employees and laboratories in the past several years for fraudulent testing. Mr. Uhlmann said the prosecutions have grown but statistics are not kept on lab-fraud cases.

The growing number of cases stretches from New England, where a chemist for municipal water made up test results, to Texas, where the government recently prosecuted the largest tester of underground fuel tanks.

Officials said they aren't certain whether more labs are falsifying tests, or whether more are simply being caught through more-aggressive investigations and whistleblowers.

Sometimes the fraud includes "driveway tests," so named because employees generate them on computers in their own driveways, without ever visiting the facilities.

Whatever the case, lab fraud hampers an environmental-protection system that frequently relies on voluntary compliance by companies backed by test results, officials said. Faked results can mislead regulators and the public into thinking they are being protected by laws when in fact companies are not abiding by the safeguards.

"Present day writers, especially of the Socilaist school of thought- base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general- with the exception of the writer himself- from the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most impportant group. Surely ths is the weirderst and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!"- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

Um, this article tells me that we need to be MORE scared, not less. These guys weren't falsifying stuff to show that global warming is coming next week, they were falsifying stuff to make us think stuff like our drinking water was peachy keen when it wasn't.

I know it's inconvinient for the GOP's corporate pimps to have to deal with the fact that their laziness and greed compromises our National Security and destroys our planet, hense the "see, someone screwed up somewhere, so global warming's all a hoax. Let's keep that oil coming!" mentality. But really, isn't the effort it takes to keep shoving your collective heads in the sand greater than just adapting business-wise to these environmental and national security concerns? There's a lot of money to be made in new energy development and environmental cleanup. If the GOP was really the party of capitalist entrapranuership instead of entrentched, lazy business interests, they'd see that and encourage it.

It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.

Originally posted by MoeGatesUm, this article tells me that we need to be MORE scared, not less. These guys weren't falsifying stuff to show that global warming is coming next week, they were falsifying stuff to make us think stuff like our drinking water was peachy keen when it wasn't.

I know it's inconvinient for the GOP's corporate pimps to have to deal with the fact that their laziness and greed compromises our National Security and destroys our planet, hense the "see, someone screwed up somewhere, so global warming's all a hoax. Let's keep that oil coming!" mentality. But really, isn't the effort it takes to keep shoving your collective heads in the sand greater than just adapting business-wise to these environmental and national security concerns? There's a lot of money to be made in new energy development and environmental cleanup. If the GOP was really the party of capitalist entrapranuership instead of entrentched, lazy business interests, they'd see that and encourage it.

Global warming or -35 degree wind chill. I seem to like this global warming idea more and more with each passing day.

Please help control the McMahon population. Have your Triple H's spayed or neutered.

Originally posted by redsoxnationGlobal warming or -35 degree wind chill. I seem to like this global warming idea more and more with each passing day.

No remember global warming is proved by the ridiculously frigid temperatures...

"Present day writers, especially of the Socilaist school of thought- base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general- with the exception of the writer himself- from the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most impportant group. Surely ths is the weirderst and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!"- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

Yes, and we also must not forget that ANY warming of the Earth MUST be caused by MAN...Even if in area far north, where the glaciers are melting, they are finding evidence of humans that lived there before the ice-age, suggesting that the Earth has not even reached the warmest it is naturally supposed to be-But that is just silly talk.

Ok, here goes, I have VERY limited scientific and mathematic information and even I can explain this.

1 or even 5 years do not make a trend. We could have two very cold winters in a row, low enough to break records, but the over-all trend (of the past couple hundred years) is that we are consistently warmer than we've been at any other time in history. When I get a chance, I'll dig out my *100 level* geography book and give you guys the numbers for this.

The whole "I like it warmer, so bring on the spray-cans!" may sound good now, but I hope you can live with the possibilty of passing this on to your great-grandchildren.

You mean - recorded history.How do you know that the current warming trend is not a part of the natural cycle of Earth? I mean, the evidence is out there that we reached much WARMER temperatures prior to the start of the last ice age - and I seriously doubt that there was any record of temperature back then...

Originally posted by astrobstrdbut the over-all trend (of the past couple hundred years) is that we are consistently warmer than we've been at any other time in history.

Accurate scientific data on the weather goes back to.....about 1815.

And remember this about climate change. Until the early 1300's, Europe was lots warmer than it was now. Grapes were grown in England and wine was a big factor in the local economy. Greenland was...well it had a lot of grass near the coast. And then all of a sudden the climate violently shifted and it got MUCH colder. In a two year period, England got much colder and the grapes died. Over several years Greenland was ocvered by its ice sheet. Some scientist now say the shift was a mini ice-age and that the climate today is still feeling its aftereffects.

The point of this is that sometimes the climate violently changes for no discenrible reason. There weren't any factories or SUV's in the 14th century to say it was manmade. We don't understand all of the factors and until we do we cannot say with any degree of certainty that man causes global warming. Remeber, in the 1970's the conventional wisdom was that we were heading for an ice age by the dawn of the 21st century...

"Present day writers, especially of the Socilaist school of thought- base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general- with the exception of the writer himself- from the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most impportant group. Surely ths is the weirderst and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!"- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

I still don't understand how we got from people illegally hiding the fact that they are poisoning our water to make a buck to whether or not we're causing global warming. Well, I can guess it had to do with what Grimis said before the actual content of the report, but I still think it's quite silly.

-Jag

On second thought, maybe I should just be scared. I mean, if Moe is the only one who read the report enough to care...

/edited, because I included SUVs here, when I was just channeling from a different thread

(edited by Jaguar on 23.1.03 0027)War is when you kill people with no names.

Originally posted by Pool-BoyYou mean - recorded history.How do you know that the current warming trend is not a part of the natural cycle of Earth? I mean, the evidence is out there that we reached much WARMER temperatures prior to the start of the last ice age - and I seriously doubt that there was any record of temperature back then...

There aren't day-to-day records of this, but by studying the fossil record and geological evidence, we can see trends. There could have been a span of 50-60 years where temperatures were hotter than they had been for a millenia, but if this fell into the middle of two 100 year periods that were colder than average, that era would be defined as a cold one. I'll be back later once I find that damn book.

Jaguar-I read the original article. It was nothing I couldn't have already guessed. Our Government spreading it's legs for Big Business at the expense of the little guy? I'm only surprised that the story broke, not that it happened. I only responded off-topic, because it looked like the anti-environment crowd was posting en masse that science is a sham.

Grimis-Even if it isn't completely certain that man causes global warming, think about it this way. If 80% of doctors agreed that eating chocolate (or something else arbitrary) would cause genetic damage to your children and grandchildren and 20% of doctors said eating chocolate is fine, would you still eat chocolate?

Originally posted by JaguarI still don't understand how we got from people illegally hiding the fact that they are poisoning our water to make a buck to whether or not we're causing global warming. Well, I can guess it had to do with what Grimis said before the actual content of the report, but I still think it's quite silly.

-Jag

On second thought, maybe I should just be scared. I mean, if Moe is the only one who read the report enough to care...

/edited, because I included SUVs here, when I was just channeling from a different thread

(edited by Jaguar on 23.1.03 0027)

I honestly do not trust a damned thing that comes out of the AP. Ever since the mainstream press became so "liberally biased," This story could be nothing more than a gross exaggeration of ONE instance of a guy making a mistake. If it is all true, sure, it is bad news and the people should be punished, and the problem fixed, but the story itself takes on an "end of the world" tone that is just ridiculously exaggerated. My personal gripe is that environmentalists (and by extension the press), though they have a good heart, tend to take a very fatalist attitude and ONLY see the evidence that supports their ideas about man causing the end of the environment on this planet, while completely ignoring everything else that comes out that CONTRADICTS them. It is a very close-minded ideology. And quite honestly- this is not the type of thinking that I want the so-called "guardians of the eco-system" to have... they just can't accomplish ANYTHING that way... and it is damned hard to take them seriously...

Originally posted by astrobstrdThere aren't day-to-day records of this, but by studying the fossil record and geological evidence, we can see trends. There could have been a span of 50-60 years where temperatures were hotter than they had been for a millenia, but if this fell into the middle of two 100 year periods that were colder than average, that era would be defined as a cold one. I'll be back later once I find that damn book

I think that makes my point for me though. If there is fossilized evidence showing 50-60 years of warmth between two 100 year periods of cold does lead credence to the theory that this is a geological rather than man-made phenomenon.

Originally posted by astrobstrdGrimis-Even if it isn't completely certain that man causes global warming, think about it this way. If 80% of doctors agreed that eating chocolate (or something else arbitrary) would cause genetic damage to your children and grandchildren and 20% of doctors said eating chocolate is fine, would you still eat chocolate?

"Present day writers, especially of the Socilaist school of thought- base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general- with the exception of the writer himself- from the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most impportant group. Surely ths is the weirderst and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!"- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

Whether we're causing global warming or not is kind of irrelevant. What, are you going to say "I told you so!" when the evidence comes out that it's natural, but we're all buried under sea (you live on the East Coast Grimis, you're right there with us)?

In the past, it wouldn't have really been a big deal if it warmed up a little bit, the Ice Caps melted a little, and say, the coasts of America receded 20 miles. But now, of course, it's a different story. So shouldn't we try to maybe do something about it, regardless of who or what is responsible?

It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.

Originally posted by MoeGatesWhether we're causing global warming or not is kind of irrelevant. What, are you going to say "I told you so!" when the evidence comes out that it's natural, but we're all buried under sea (you live on the East Coast Grimis, you're right there with us)?

In the past, it wouldn't have really been a big deal if it warmed up a little bit, the Ice Caps melted a little, and say, the coasts of America receded 20 miles. But now, of course, it's a different story. So shouldn't we try to maybe do something about it, regardless of who or what is responsible?

I don't think that the "natural" or "man-made" is the debate. It's whether or not the so-called Global Warming is going to cause disasters on the scale that you're predicting.

As many scientists that agree with you, there are an equal number that feel that this will correct itself, as it has always done.

Fossil records are...okay sometimes for determining approximate climate during approximate time periods. A more accurate source over the last centuries is ships' logs, which are abundant and fairly consistent.

One interesting lecture I heard from a prominent meteorologist raised a new issue. Most (app. 80%) of sampling sites used to examine global climate trends are in the middle of urban areas. This raises all sorts of obvious problems. This professor threw out that data and used only rural samples. They did not show a warming trend. (Note: I'm not saying this DISproves global warming theory, so don't try to say that I am.)

So what's the issue? Simple: are man's activities accelerating natural climate trends to the point that we are directly or indirectly asking for it in a few centuries. This doesn't mean the earth will be a post-apocalyptic hell, but it could mean starvation due to crop shortages that lead to war, etc.

By the way, many people have this issue confused with the Ozone hole; they are entirely separate issues.

I think that makes my point for me though. If there is fossilized evidence showing 50-60 years of warmth between two 100 year periods of cold does lead credence to the theory that this is a geological rather than man-made phenomenon.

The info in the book I was looking for (Geosysyems for Geography 101) basically laid it out like this: There are warm and cold cycles in the Earth's history. We are in a warm cycle. The current warm cycle is one degree celcius cooler on average than the warmest we've ever had since the cooling of the Earth. The info may be outdated, as the book is a few years old now (I can check the copy date when I get home), and if you can link to a study that proves otherwise that isn't at www.rushlimbaugh.com or www.bigbusiness.com, I'll gladly take a look at it.

You were right, 80% isn't anywhere near being a true statistical figure, but talking with my dad about this, a man with a PhD in Geography, has led me to believe that most men of science are pretty convinced that man has at least SOME impact on this current warming trend.

Pool-Boy-It's kind of funny that you posted that liberals always slant any environmental news towards prophecies of doom, because I was going to post almost the exact opposite thing. Conservatives and big business will pump out pollutants, allow foresting and grazing on federally protected land, and tell us oil is the cure for everything, because making a quick buck now is worth the cost to them to possibly leaving behind a very big problem five or six generations down the line.

Thread ahead: The Politics of AIDSNext thread: New Michigan law - Strippers must be at least 3 feet from all patronsPrevious thread: Bush plans to challenge program that gives preference to minority students